Funny thing happened on the way to the war . . .

[BaliBabyDoc]

yahoo

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A captured al Qaeda operative who told U.S. authorities that
Iraq had trained al Qaeda members to use unconventional weapons was identified as a probable liar months before the Bush administration began using his claims to make its case for war.

Granted, if Scooter was keeping the "minutes" I'm sure its understandable that a few things were "forgotten."

"Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control," the excerpts said.

Hmm, curiously . . . I vaguely remember many . . . many people saying it was illogical for Saddam to cozy up to these people. Some people had the gall to predict radicals would flock to Iraq if Saddam was removed. What were they thinking?!

President George W. Bush, Vice President
Dick Cheney, then-Secretary of State
Colin Powell and other administration officials cited Libi's input as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training al Qaeda members in explosives and illicit weapons use. The officials did not mention him by name at the time.

I wonder why . . . hmmm.

Bush, in a speech in October 2002, said: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and gases."

So is it a lie to repeat something that you know to be false?

But White House spokesman Scott McClellan pointed out that Democrats in Congress also supported military action based on the same intelligence findings. "Many of their comments said, 'We cannot wait to address this threat,"' he said.

So the Democrats made Bush do it?:roll:

So Scott . . . was that threat eminent?

 

[Strk]

Bring back honor and integrity to the White House every day.... :roll:

But White House spokesman Scott McClellan pointed out that Democrats in Congress also supported military action based on the same intelligence findings. "Many of their comments said, 'We cannot wait to address this threat,"' he said.

That sounds like the excuse a couple of people here will use/always use for anything that goes wrong with Bush. But the Democrats did it too! Honestly, when you screw up as a kid and say "but my brother did it too," you just get you slapped upside the head harder and an even worse punishment, so why should it work in government?

 

[ntdz]

Wow, nice poll. What should someone vote for if they think Bush thought he was telling the truth?

 

[Pabster]

This is a liberal poll - the truth isn't an option

 

[nageov3t]

I think that they knowingly lied to get us to war, but they did so with good intentions.

 

[bearxor]

Originally posted by: Pabster
This is a liberal poll - the truth isn't an option

QFT

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Wow, nice poll. What should someone vote for if they think Bush thought he was telling the truth?

B . . . Bush thought he was telling the truth . . . b/c he's a friggin' tool.

 

[judasmachine]

He knew what he was doing the whole time, he isn't an idiot, he's a dislexic showmaster.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Pabster
This is a liberal poll - the truth isn't an option

keep laughing while our soldiers die and our money is stolen from us

 

[Rainsford]

This is what politicians do...they twist and manipulate the facts in order to support their views and ideas. Democrat, Republican, whatever, it's how things work. Which is fine, as long as you realize that, you can work with the system. The problem is when people start actually believing that the elected officials are beacons of justice and truth, and that their word is more trustworthly than a thousand facts and all that noise.

 

[zendari]

Text


I guess the Democrats are so stupid the Governor of Texas and his handlers can fool the sitting president!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text


I guess the Democrats are so stupid the Governor of Texas and his handlers can fool the sitting president!

It's interesting you bring that up...since we didn't actually find any WMDs or WMD programs...or even WMD program related activities, does that mean Clinton was successful? He took out the Iraq threat without actually invading?

Just wondering...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text


I guess the Democrats are so stupid the Governor of Texas and his handlers can fool the sitting president!

Bush has been a much bigger disaster than Al Qaeda.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
Text


I guess the Democrats are so stupid the Governor of Texas and his handlers can fool the sitting president!

It's interesting you bring that up...since we didn't actually find any WMDs or WMD programs...or even WMD program related activities, does that mean Clinton was successful? He took out the Iraq threat without actually invading?

Just wondering...

Did he remove Saddam from power?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush has been a much bigger disaster than Al Qaeda.

Spoken like Howard Dean himself :thumbsup:

Keep it up -- you are locking up '06 and '08 for the Republicans :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
Text


I guess the Democrats are so stupid the Governor of Texas and his handlers can fool the sitting president!

It's interesting you bring that up...since we didn't actually find any WMDs or WMD programs...or even WMD program related activities, does that mean Clinton was successful? He took out the Iraq threat without actually invading?

Just wondering...

Did he remove Saddam from power?

Wasn't the stated threat at the beginning of the invasion WMDs? I might be remembering wrong, but all the justification I heard (and believed, at the time) revolved around Iraq having WMDs and using them on the US. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" and all that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush has been a much bigger disaster than Al Qaeda.

Spoken like Howard Dean himself :thumbsup:

Keep it up -- you are locking up '06 and '08 for the Republicans :laugh: :laugh:

Do you really think the Republicans are going to have a lock on 2006 and 2008 elections? Support seems to be waning already, and I'm not sure they are going to get back the kind of support they had in 2004...which wasn't as impressive as some make it out to be in any case.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Wasn't the stated threat at the beginning of the invasion WMDs? I might be remembering wrong, but all the justification I heard (and believed, at the time) revolved around Iraq having WMDs and using them on the US. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" and all that.

WMD, indeed.

Did anyone happen to catch FNS and see Chris Wallace taking it to Chucky Schumer? Watching Schumer try to spin his way out of his lies and political agenda was quite hilarious.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
Text


I guess the Democrats are so stupid the Governor of Texas and his handlers can fool the sitting president!

It's interesting you bring that up...since we didn't actually find any WMDs or WMD programs...or even WMD program related activities, does that mean Clinton was successful? He took out the Iraq threat without actually invading?

Just wondering...

Hehe . . . obviously Clinton's approach was a failure by Iranian standards.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Wasn't the stated threat at the beginning of the invasion WMDs? I might be remembering wrong, but all the justification I heard (and believed, at the time) revolved around Iraq having WMDs and using them on the US. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" and all that.

WMD, indeed.

Did anyone happen to catch FNS and see Chris Wallace taking it to Chucky Schumer? Watching Schumer try to spin his way out of his lies and political agenda was quite hilarious.

Didn't see that...what was Shumer being questioned about?

And what does that have to do with Clinton dealing with the WMD threat from Iraq?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Didn't see that...what was Shumer being questioned about?

He was being questioned about his political motivations. And the fact that he had a lot of damning words about Iraq and Saddam circa 2002-2003 just like everyone else did. When Wallace played the video clips it was obvious Schumer was in full obfuscation mode. (As usual.)

And what does that have to do with Clinton dealing with the WMD threat from Iraq?

Well this thread is actually just another Bush-bash, the Clinton side of it is a recent turn

There's little point in having any debate about Clinton's failures in relation to Iraq. That'd be like discussing Carter's failures with relation to Iran. The obfuscaters would ruin any attempt at actual discussion so there's no point.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text


I guess the Democrats are so stupid the Governor of Texas and his handlers can fool the sitting president!

Except one went into Iraq and the other one didn't.

And I really hate hearing people argue about the need to take Saddam out of power. Yes, he was a bad man, but he was also neutered. His military was decrepit, the weapons programs didn't exist and he didn't control most of his country. Yes, he was stealing from the Oil-for-Food program to fund more gold-plated toilets for his next palace.

Yet Saddam is supposedly the worst. Dozens of countries are guilty of mass atrocities. And many of those atrocities continue to happen in numerous countries. Corruption? Pick up a phone book in Nigeria. The list goes on as well. Yet we don't try and remove other dictators/juntas/regimes around the world.

I'm willing to bet that most that give unwavering support to Bush and his endeavor in Iraq were completely against our intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Wow, nice poll. What should someone vote for if they think Bush thought he was telling the truth?

I believe the option you want is C.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
Text


I guess the Democrats are so stupid the Governor of Texas and his handlers can fool the sitting president!

It's interesting you bring that up...since we didn't actually find any WMDs or WMD programs...or even WMD program related activities, does that mean Clinton was successful? He took out the Iraq threat without actually invading?

Just wondering...

Did he remove Saddam from power?

Who cares about Hussein? The mission we were sold was one of the imminent threat of WMD. Those don't exist.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
Text


I guess the Democrats are so stupid the Governor of Texas and his handlers can fool the sitting president!

It's interesting you bring that up...since we didn't actually find any WMDs or WMD programs...or even WMD program related activities, does that mean Clinton was successful? He took out the Iraq threat without actually invading?

Just wondering...

According to reports before BushCo announced its intention to attack Iraq, yes, Clinton's limited, focused bombings were quite successful. Using current intelligence from the U.N. inspection team, we successfully eliminated the last remnants of Iraq's nuclear program and at least 90-95% of Iraq's remaining biological and chemical weapons programs and stockpiles. Of course, the Clinton haters of the time, undoubtedly people like Zendari, screamed "wag the dog" and denounced Clinton's tempered attack. They apparently prefered to kills tens of thousands of innocent human beings and over 2,000 brave American soldiers, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a quagmire that's good for Halliburton, but bad for both America and Iraq.